Just f'n peachy.

Just f'n peachy. - 03/07/1310:00 AM

Re: Just f'n peachy. - 03/07/1310:14 AM

I, for one, am glad they are settling down to think about this a bit more instead of jumping into something that could have consequences unforeseen by some. Of course, it appears, that at least some of the pushers of these agendas are aware of these consequences and want that exact thing.

But, me, it's always been my opinion that more thought is not a bad thing.

Re: Just f'n peachy. - 03/07/1301:25 PM

Re: Just f'n peachy. - 03/07/1302:47 PM

I believe HSBC paid a hefty fine. It appears, to me, that these two individuals were sincerly trying to explain what and why they did what they did. She kept asking for their opinion. I'm not sure they were in the position to give an opinion. I might be wrong there.

I guess it must be determined if individuals of the bank broke laws . If they did then put their butts in jail of give them a needle.

Re: Just f'n peachy. - 03/07/1305:25 PM

The lowest gun-death rate was in Hawaii, with 3 deaths per 100,000 residents. Hawaii scored 16 on the legislative score. Louisiana ranked highest in the rate of gun deaths at 18 per 100,000 residents. It’s legislative score was 1.

Re: Just f'n peachy. - 03/07/1305:51 PM

The point is people should go to jail, MrB. If I can profit personally from whatever crime I want to commit, and know that the "person" punished will be the corporation that will pay a fine that amounts to a relatively small percent of the misbegotten gains that I enabled it to get--why the hell would I not feel empowered to do commit the crime, again and again? You know whipping boys were all the rage when princes were supposed to be untouchable by their guardians. That didn't work, and this hands off the individual who commits the crime while you punish a corporate "person" doesn't work either.

Re: Just f'n peachy. - 03/07/1310:34 PM

Re: Just f'n peachy. - 03/07/1310:42 PM

Aw, the data doesn't say this at all. In fact the data is a mish mash, as it figured the number of laws the states had. No indicating of what the laws were about and no indicating of causal effect.

Not only this, but the "researchers" said they were trying to show the results they got. Ths indicates to me that they configured the data to effect that result. They also got their data from the Brady Organization.

Re: Just f'n peachy. - 03/08/1305:14 AM

Re: Just f'n peachy. - 03/08/1305:25 AM

That's not what I said. I think the study they did is suspect.

It would be like a study that shows that 80% of traffic fatalities, drivers use of soft drinks or coffee was present. (I estimated the percent, but would guess it about right)Then conclude from this that caffeine causes driver impairment.

One can't throw a couple of sets of data together and then claim one affects the other. I believe they even indicated this in the link.

Re: Just f'n peachy. - 03/08/1306:57 PM

The articles does state that more (detailed) data is needed . For example which laws were effective and which ones were not.

However the one true data that was used was a simple fact -> States that have more gun laws had fewer gun related deaths -vs- States that have liberal gun laws.

Sorta what Steve G said - just that single data point is enough said.

IMO; There should be a single source data base that all police departments report too, that is mandatory in every case . Some sort of an electronic file system or a check list .

Say a detective is call out to a new crime scene , he brings his department issued iPad selects new case and a checklist pops up - type of crime and weapon of choice - there would be check boxes that once check goes auto into a national data base.

This would show how many criminal gun deaths -vs- gun deaths by accident -vs- gun deaths by self defense . Not to mention gun deaths -vs- knife deaths and so on.

I know its a dream - but this day and age it is certainly possible but I don't see anyone working to that direction ? ?

Re: Just f'n peachy. - 03/09/1302:30 AM

Re: Just f'n peachy. - 03/09/1303:52 AM

There's a problem. Holder is hiding behind Too Big to Fail. But, IMHO, while shutting down certain banks may present some risks to the economy, the execs and directors that enabled and even participated in these abhorrent activities are NOT too big to jail. Leave the banks standing, but at least indict the shˇt out of the schmucks that caused the problem in the first place.

Re: Just f'n peachy. - 03/09/1308:22 AM

Originally Posted By: steveg

There's a problem. Holder is hiding behind Too Big to Fail. But, IMHO, while shutting down certain banks may present some risks to the economy, the execs and directors that enabled and even participated in these abhorrent activities are NOT too big to jail. Leave the banks standing, but at least indict the shˇt out of the schmucks that caused the problem in the first place.

Re: Just f'n peachy. - 03/09/1309:39 AM

Originally Posted By: steveg

There's a problem. Holder is hiding behind Too Big to Fail. But, IMHO, while shutting down certain banks may present some risks to the economy, the execs and directors that enabled and even participated in these abhorrent activities are NOT too big to jail. Leave the banks standing, but at least indict the shˇt out of the schmucks that caused the problem in the first place.

Re: Just f'n peachy. - 03/09/1310:23 AM

Originally Posted By: DLC

Originally Posted By: steveg

There's a problem. Holder is hiding behind Too Big to Fail. But, IMHO, while shutting down certain banks may present some risks to the economy, the execs and directors that enabled and even participated in these abhorrent activities are NOT too big to jail. Leave the banks standing, but at least indict the shˇt out of the schmucks that caused the problem in the first place.

Re: Just f'n peachy. - 03/09/1310:49 AM

Re: Just f'n peachy. - 03/09/1306:15 PM

Originally Posted By: steveg

There's a problem. Holder is hiding behind Too Big to Fail. But, IMHO, while shutting down certain banks may present some risks to the economy, the execs and directors that enabled and even participated in these abhorrent activities are NOT too big to jail. Leave the banks standing, but at least indict the shˇt out of the schmucks that caused the problem in the first place.